Gamespot UK plays Fallout 3 (again)

[Scare]

Fire breathing critters were not very cool the first time around, you couldn't even skin them.

So what's the 50's era sci-fi explanation for fire breathing anyway, Godzilla shot electricity out of his mouth not fire really.

 

[Jesuit]

Your Actual arguments. Finally:

"set out to make a future science that looked like what the Golden Era of science fiction thought that future science would look like." Tim Cain noted it is "based on the horrors that 1950's science had predicted for a future apocalyptic world."

Wow. A real argument! It is generally assumed that such a statement assumes the inclusion of foreign influences of significant impact. Neither quote specifically excludes foreign influences and neither directly implies an American-only inclusiveness. Given that Godzilla was a very dominant feature of the 50's era Sci-Fi horror milieu in America it's inclusion into that ideal is more than valid, it's required. In other words I really don't see either of those quotes comes anywhere near making your point about Godzilla.

The impact of Godzilla on American Sci-Fi is hardly of importance in this matter though. Them! established the concept of a radiated giant insect-monster. American films alone ran the gambit from giant ants, to fly-human hybrids, to computers that could control a person's mind all the way to wasp women, fire breathing ants is hardly a stretch.

- Blade Runner, Wargames, are those 50s pulp?

They play heavily on the themes of 50's pulp. Technology run amok, cold war fear, etc. Blade runner is a "Film-Noir" a genre with strong ties to the era. Both films are definitely considered a modern take on the 50's.

Clearly, the function of easter eggs was not to represent a consistent part of Fallout's approach to 50s pulp, and as such they are void to any argument.

Disagree. See above.

There is a reason people keep referring to fire-breathing monsters or radiation-blowing ghouls as "magic", it is because in the core mechanics they come very close to the way magical monsters are treated in fantasy cRPGs. I find the similarity disturbing, but am not drawing conclusions based on it as of yet.

You can't really cite people's impressions as proof that these things are in fact magical. I didn't consider fire geckos magical, I doubt you're gonna find many people who did, though I'm open to be proven wrong at that point. I have yet to see the implementation of ghouls.

Your bullshit debate limiting mind games:

Where did I say I did?

You're either being extremely unclear or deliberately disingenuous at this point, I don't really care which as my appreciation of your opinion on this matter is too far gone.

Owtch. The irony here is like peanut butter on a thin spread.

I like the way you call it baseless ad hominem when I make similar, but more grounded, comments.

How could that possible not be a part of my learning?...

I'm not an expert, and never claimed to be an "expert". If you don't want people to bring your authority up to question then don't try to use it as a means for making an argument. Yes, I know you're gonna say you didn't, but you did.

This is NMA. If you wish to make a point, you will need to bring strong arguments, not adhominems or appeals to authority.

Yeah, somehow I didn't get anything close to that impression of this place. I'm pretty sure very few people do. Maybe you should put a sign up somewhere.

Oh wow. Do you not see how "I am an American so I must know better than you" does not actually work as a replacement for actual arguments?

That wasn't an argument aimed at convincing you of anything. I was being serious. There. isn't. a. single. American. in. academia. that. would. take. that. argument. seriously. I know because I've met a lot of them, and I've been through their classes and read a lot of their published material. When you make an argument and someone calls it ridiculous you either re-explain it or make another argument. You failed to do that and instead reasserted your authority on the matter, so I ridiculed some more. I know that normally the "I'm an American" argument is bullshit but you're actually trying to tell me how I and those around me remember American history and culture. Not only that, but you're so far off base that it borders on the absurd. That's ridiculous. How would you react if I said something equally ridiculous about whatever country you're from and then came back with a "well I studied your history in school". I'd look like a jackass to you. Most people who don't want to look like jackasses don't do stuff like that.

this thread will be split and a strike will be given for, shall we say, bad behaviour. You need to learn that hopping on one foot and shouting "you look ridiculous" is no way to conduct an argument. Not by our book.

speaking of authority... did I earn my strike yet? I like that you try to say that you're appealing to a higher ideal of debate... on NMA. Any idiot can see that you're just pulling rank.

 

[Goral]

You guys haven't seen many 50's monster movies have you? Giant radiated whatevers with stupid abilities is pretty much a staple of 50's era atomic paranoia cinema in America. If it's handled appropriately it'll be kind of cool.

Cool? Cool to whom? And how can you "handle properly" ant spewing fire? It seems retarded from every angle. Also whether it's consistent with movies from 50-60 years ago isn't an issue here because we're talking about Fallout here not remake of Them! or whatever. In Fallout 2 (not to mention 1) there weren't that many nonsensical elements, what's more even creators themselves admitted they've overdone it. So instead of decreasing amount of mistakes from previous Fallouts they're adding new ones and make Fallout 3 even more stupid just so it has some originality in it.

Are you fucking kidding me? Fire ants are exponentially LESS retarded than most things in Fallout 2.

Huh? What "most" things are you referring to? More like "some" but even than it's still debatable.

 

[Anani Masu]

Ok, so some ants can already spray their acid when threatened. Them! demonstrated that radiation can cause ants to grow to the size of SUVs without losing their proportional strength. Please explain why a mutation that causes their acid to ignite on contact with the air is more magical than a guy who can cause things to burst into flames with the power of his will. This seems to me to be driven more by a desire to criticize Bethesda than by genuine lore concerns.

 

[ookami]

Someone earlier made a comment about it being like a xanth novel and that's about the level of effort it seems was put into it.

Yeah, that was me. I do have to extend an apology to Piers Anthony for that, though. He created his own world where puns belong. Bethesda, on the other hand, bought a world and are shoehorning this crap in where it doesn't really fit and just sounds stupid. I guess the truly creative people who know how to weave a cohesive world really are gone from BGS.

Watch out for those mutated butterflies in FO3. They'll get you with a cholesterol attack.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Urgh, partly I feel like stepping in a puddle of piss by even trying to enter this discussion. But I also feel strangely compelled to do so.

Multiculturalism is, admittedly, an integral part of American culture, society even. All the old stuff from Crevecoeur to Fairchild's somewhat sickening “The Melting-Pot mistake” spring to mind. This is in fact more society than culture.

But to use the idea of multiculturalism in American culture to validate the importance of certain foreign culture aspects (King Kong, whatever) to validate their relevance in the argument that fire breathing fire ants are not such a far stretch from 50’s movies to argue that, because of all this, it’s not a problem for a Fallout game to have fire ants is in its entirety an argument that is incredibly hard to validate.

In the end there’s the danger that this all basically boils down to personal preference regardless of any argument. Because the essence of the debate is the Fallout setting and this is entirely debatable, albeit with valid points grounded on for example what the creators envisaged. But then, as we’ve seen, there’s the argument that what the creators envisaged didn’t specifically exclude things. Hell, this is like an argument about the American constitution, how it should be read and interpreted and whether or not Madison’s “The Federalist” articles should be counted as guide lines or not. So basically, I doubt there could be an agreeable end to a discussion revolving around what the Fallout universe really is.

And then there’s this argument on authority. The ‘I know better because I belong to X and you don’t’-argument sweeps across in all its vomit-like post-modern glory. Neither side actually brought any arguments to validate the (un)importance of foreign culture influence. Probably because once the connection to the Fallout universe gets severed, the argument becomes invalid. But the connection to the Fallout universe is, as I believe, a matter of taste and interpretation. And because coming up with real proof as to whether foreign culture influence was an integral part of American society in the 50’s would require to actually dig out some research… that just goes way too far for a debate on the internet.

Seems like the debate at least got past that dreadful post-modern argument though, luckily.



Now, as for my own opinion. I just don't like fire breathing fire ants. I fear that Bethesda has picked up the radiation-argument to just come up with lots of weird creatures to fill their endless random-generated dungeons. I hope the game proves me wrong in the end, because I'd hate to just fight through generic dungeons filled with generic mobs rewarded with randomly generated loot. But that's pretty much the experience I had with Oblivion in the end.


Edit: Fairchild, not Fairfield. Bugger, it's been a while I've read through that stuff....

Edit 2: Holy crap, I just dropped down a post-modern hole there didn't I.... I'm actually arguing that it is (almost) impossible to argue about what the Fallout universe constitutes and that thus, everyone experiences his or her own Fallout universe because the empiric argument of a person’s interchangeability simply doesn't stand. Oh well, guess if it comes down to taste, I've got some post-modernist influence in me as well.

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

Ok, so some ants can already spray their acid when threatened. Them! demonstrated that radiation can cause ants to grow to the size of SUVs without losing their proportional strength. Please explain why a mutation that causes their acid to ignite on contact with the air is more magical than a guy who can cause things to burst into flames with the power of his will. This seems to me to be driven more by a desire to criticize Bethesda than by genuine lore concerns.

Whoa, could Moore do that?

Damn, I wish he tried to set me afire during my invasion of the Cathedral! In fact, I think it would be awesome if a future (pretty improbrable) Fallout Restoration Project or Remake could show us the Psykers' and The Master's powers used in combat. I never understood why the Master simply didn't mentally order me to stand down.

 

[Eyenixon]

He did try to mush your brain in the corridor before you enter his chambers, unless you had the Psychic Nullifier of course.

 

[TheWesDude]

jesuit,

one thing you are missing is in the 90s the fact is the godzilla footprint is in a special encounter that is an EASTER EGG.

in the 90s computer gaming, an easter egg was something the developers wanted to include independant of the story/setting/genre either for fun or to provide a piece of unusual loot to the player.

unless of course you are considering monty python a part of 50s sci-fi culture and fallout lore?

thats too far of a stretch. look at all of the easter egg encounters and you will see why godzilla is not considered lore/cannon. its inclusion in FO1 specifically excludes it from lore/cannon and trying to defend it as lore/cannon is why people here are displeased with your arguments and holding up godzilla as an example.

 

[Zeld]

I'm wondering if anyone from Bethesda is reading this thread. I mean, look how much hatred, what they considered as "funny pun" (Fire ants), has emerged.

 

[13pm]

I'm wondering if anyone from Bethesda is reading this thread. I mean, look how much hatred, what they considered as "funny pun" (Fire ants), has emerged.

They do. But it won't change anything. They just can't understand what they are doing wrong, so they will just continue calling us angry, stubborn, old-fashioned etc.

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

He did try to mush your brain in the corridor before you enter his chambers, unless you had the Psychic Nullifier of course.

Yes, I remember that. Those Psychic atacks were actually quite mean if you didn't had the Nullifier. I remember he pretty much crippled you almost everywhere if you were totally vulnerable. But I wish he used it on combat, too. Like making a illusionary army of Super Mutants appear at your side, with "real damage" (fake damage that would recover in the next turn, but if you get damaged on the same turn and lose all HP, you REALLY die), taking temporary control of you for some moments (say, to send you to the path of his Dual Gatling Lasers or make you bang your head on a pillar), calling REAL Super Mutants with his mental powers (I think he did this, but could've been more, and not diferent from the fake mutties), hitting you with psychic blasts during combat, lowering your stats and skills, break your nullifier though sheer psychic power, make you thrown your weapon in the ground and making you hallucinate and go on the verge of sanity and oh so many things... It would make it much more harder and challenging, maybe the best battle of the series!

 

[Scare]

Opinions on fire ants would make a pretty good subject for a new poll on the main page, I'm sure the Bethsters are beyond thinking that poll sabotage will do them any good.

PoS had radiation 'magic' scorpions that spat green 'fire' and gouls also that did the same but the 'magic' radiation balls just came out of there hands, there was also a giant with a sword at one point.

Don't know where I was going with that but it looks bad folks.

 

[Brother None]

It is generally assumed that such a statement assumes the inclusion of foreign influences of significant impact.

"Generally assumed"?

Anyway, no it isn't. "Golden Era sci-fi" is purely American, an the views of 50's science on the post-apocalyptic obviously precludes pop culture of any kind.

Them! established the concept of a radiated giant insect-monster.

Yes. That is why nobody has any issues with giant bugs in Fallout (idiots notwithstanding).

They play heavily on the themes of 50's pulp. Technology run amok, cold war fear, etc.

Excellent. Yet you will agree they aren't, actually, thematically connected to 50's pulp in the same way that drawing from Golden Era sci fi or using certain architectural styles are, no? Indeed, Fallout does connect its easter eggs more fittingly with the lore than Fallout 2 did, but are you actually claiming Dr. Who should be seen as part of Fallout's thematic? If not, why would Godzilla?

You can't really cite people's impressions as proof that these things are in fact magical.

I didn't cite their impressions as proof, I stated the game mechanics are eerily similar in my impression - an impression I noted is not definitive. How does what you said apply to that point? All I am saying is that in terms of game mechanics we are talking functionally identical to magic, which is kind of silly.

Your bullshit debate limiting mind games:

Have a strike. I am trying to teach you to follow our rules. If you really wish not to, that is your choice.

You're either being extremely unclear or deliberately disingenuous at this point, I don't really care which as my appreciation of your opinion on this matter is too far gone.

No, you misread my statement, and now you're trying to insult me. How is that any way to behave?

I'm not an expert, and never claimed to be an "expert". If you don't want people to bring your authority up to question then don't try to use it as a means for making an argument. Yes, I know you're gonna say you didn't, but you did.

How did I do that, then? You started attacking me personally, stating I would be the laughing-stock of all American historians. I simply falsified this statement, nothing more, nothing less.

There. isn't. a. single. American. in. academia. that. would. take. that. argument. seriously.

And yet I have met American academia who do. Thus your statement is falsified. Again.

When you make an argument and someone calls it ridiculous you either re-explain it or make another argument.

What? You honestly think you calling something ridiculous obliges me to explain myself again? Why? So you can call it ridiculous again.

you're actually trying to tell me how I and those around me remember American history and culture.

No I'm not. I suspect you do not know the meaning of the term discourse in the sense that I meant it, which is neither how you commonly remember it nor how you commonly talk about it.

It is a one way street around here isn't it? Reputation: deserved.

You are obviously here with a belligerent attitude, setting out to insult people. When people insult in kind, you then claim our reputation is deserved?

Very typical, it happens like that a lot. People come here, break our rules, insult our regulars, and when they're swatted down for it they cry injustice.

A serious question: do you honestly not see how your arguments keep coming down to ad hominems and other false dismissals? If you are truly academically schooled, why are you behaving like this? If we are truly so wrong, what need have you to be so abusive?

Ok, so some ants can already spray their acid when threatened. Them! demonstrated that radiation can cause ants to grow to the size of SUVs without losing their proportional strength. Please explain why a mutation that causes their acid to ignite on contact with the air is more magical than a guy who can cause things to burst into flames with the power of his will. This seems to me to be driven more by a desire to criticize Bethesda than by genuine lore concerns.

The psykers are a very sensitive point of contention. I've talked about it with developers at times and it seems to me the consensus was that the psykers represented a lore possibility for Fallout, a possibility for a future Fallout game to focus heavily on that part of pulp lore (because psykers are very much a part of Golden Era sci fi).

So yes, in that sense you're right, if we combine giant ants from Fallout 2 with psykers from Fallout 1 then we can justify fire ants. In the basics, this argument is correct, and I can not refute it whole. I could point to the fact that combining two parts of lore to make a third doesn't always work, I could point out that psykers are a unique rarity and not a prominent part of lore, I could point out that psykers are prominent in pulp lore while fire-breathing insects are not. With those arguments, you could see possible issues with fire-breathing ants, or not, but you make a good argument, and I have none to counter it of equal strength, so we inch dangerously close to "it's just your opinion, man" territory.

 

[PaladinHeart]

I think the fire ants should simply spit acid.

I also think some people say too much without actually saying anything at all.

I noticed someone thinks that fire breathing creatures are alright in Fallout, because it's based on 50's sci-fi.

But someone else thinks Fallout is based on only American science fiction the 50's. This would not include foreign influences.

I don't see any problem with giant ants. I don't think anyone else does either (based on the comments I read). The main problem is apparently that they are "fire breathing" which kinda hints at them being magical. I did notice a comment earlier that their acid simply ignites into flames once airborn. That would be alright, but apparently gaming tech has not reached the point yet where we could see this liquid being sprayed and simultaneously combusting into flames as it goes through the air.

Some people might think the floaters and centaurs don't belong in Fallout. One of my complaints about the original games was that the mantises are in packs and too small. A mantis of that size would not go after prey that is bigger than it, and they would NEVER travel in packs. It's a very silly concept. If praying mantises survived and adapted to prey on humans, they would be BIGGER than you, the color of the wasteland, and wait in ambush and you'd never know what hit you.

But yet they were in both Fallout 1 and 2.

So basically, it's all a matter of personal opinion of what should or shouldn't be in a Fallout game.

(As for giant ants, they would not be a minor enemy randomly encountered in the game, but should rather be considered a threat to the continued existence of mankind. If they're in the game, then the player should be given a major quest to destroy their queen, one way or another...)

 

[Viliny]

That would be alright, but apparently gaming tech has not reached the point yet where we could see this liquid being sprayed and simultaneously combusting into flames as it goes through the air.

Im pretty sure this could be implemented with ease... didn't postal 2 do this? or something similar? my memory fails me...

Seriously not that high tech

 

[God is Dog backwards]

Christ guys, some of this reads as if you're itching to write a university thesis, possibly in latin, rather than discuss a game. I can't explain why but I feel the thread needs a picture of goatse.

On topic: I can't get too worked up about fire breathing ants. I haven't read any of the comics you're talking about, but my gut tells me mutation in Fallout might do such a thing. I reckon all of this depends on context more than anything else - how the fire-ants and friends are implemented within the game.